DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Forums - Discs & Movies - High Definition DVD covers also suck!

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

i agree who really cares about how good the picture quality. until the prices go down i don't think people will catch on . the cases are totally lame and i'd rather pay half the price and get a better package.thats just me i'd be down for an HD or Blue ray player if it was cheaper. i have a projector so it's all good for me.

Cervantes wrote: Thanks for your opinion Nic, try looking at say, www.moviegoods.com and go to the posters link, then type in say, ten of your favourite films you own on DVD (High Def artwork is shaping up to be similar), and see if you prefer what the front covers look like compared to the original art. Oh, and I already cited "Jaws" as one example, but look to all the "Star Wars" films as obvious others. The Drew Struzan art (he has a nice site with a great "Bladerunner" proposal by the way)is BETTER than what we got. There are numerous other examples. ******* Image examples. It would have been nice to read the passage then see an image example.

Thanks for your opinion Nic, try looking at say, www.moviegoods.com and go to the posters link, then type in say, ten of your favourite films you own on DVD (High Def artwork is shaping up to be similar), and see if you prefer what the front covers look like compared to the original art. Oh, and I already cited "Jaws" as one example, but look to all the "Star Wars" films as obvious others. The Drew Struzan art (he has a nice site with a great "Bladerunner" proposal by the way)is BETTER than what we got. There are numerous other examples. While I'm already aware that the art rights involve more cost, I STILL think we got an inferior product over the years (like we did with "bare bones" releases that didn't even give us a trailer!). Thanks for your helpful suggestion Cheddar Cheese and Intergalactic Ponce however, and I'm already having to do this, as it DOES...

Original artwork would be good but the original art was designed to sell the film at poster size. Very often it becomes less effective at doing that when it's been shrunk down to DVD cover size. From the distributors point of view it (somethimes) doesn't stand out when it's that small and sitting on a shelf full of other DVD's all clamouring for your money. Plus, the original artist wants paying (again).

None of that excuses some of the really dire cut and paste jobs we see, but as Cheddar has said, you can always print out your own if it really bothers you.

Is it just me, or have studios missed a trick AGAIN, by releasing the new generation of DVDs with substandard artwork, just like the first generation DVDs? I was so hoping that studios would use ORIGINAL poster artwork this time round, as the original art poster campaigns for the cinema release nearly always seem more evocative than the covers that end up cobbled together for the DVD release. The awful new "Jaws" DVD artwork is just an example, compared to the original artwork. Not happy!